It isn't Free.....The Democrats Lied

i know, and thats why i asked that exact question. How long does the adverage patient (not the top 1% who can aford to buy a hospital) wait for what is generally an elective procidure. Its an especially interesting on to pick because the adverage work load of othopedics is split between emergency work (pelvic fractures from high speed MVAs for example) and elective hip replacements for the elderly. Now this balance is oviously going to change depending which hospital you pick (for instance St Vincents, Royal Darwin, Royal Adelaide and Flinders ect are going to have a much higher percentage of the emergency work)

All services are rationed, wether its rationed on clinical need or $ doesnt change the fact that its still rationed. If the US waiting list is 2 weeks then we still need to ask "how many people need this but arnt on the waiting list because they cant aford it?" This is what always gets left out by the US right and there is an inherent bias in this as well "how dare i have to wait for something elective because a homeless person needs something urgently"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In my brother's instance, he had a fractured hip. And as I think about it was two weeks that he had to lay around and wait for emergency surgery. Additionally, he has "excellent" private insurance.

So the myth that people like buffalo roam are peddaling is that there are no comperable waits in the US and that is simply not true. And in the US the waiting periods are not only influenced by logistic issues but financial issues as well (haggaling with insurance companies to get them to pay for medical treatment).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No pj, it is you who don't have a clue, go to school, take the classes and get your insurance license, and then come back and prove that smokinglizard and I don't have a clue.

Only if each person has the absolute same health risk, those that are at higher risk of health problems (preexisting conditions), must pay for that Higher Risk, in Higher Premiums, or the risk pool goes broke supporting those high risk individuals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and things have proceeded to get progressivly worse for those countries and their national health care systems.

 

But they still have them.

 

For how long? and just how much longer can they afford them?
and at what cost to the ability to provide services? in a timely and cost effective manner with out cuts in service and benefits.


Yes, if I have a heart problem that requires immediate attention, and it take 6 weeks.....6 months......a Year......to get in to see the Doctor, be diagnosed and receive treatment, and I die on the waiting list, just what good did my National Health Care do me?

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukforgets.html

Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb said: “Three days after the Health Secretary claimed there were no more waiting lists in the NHS, *Government figures have shown that a quarter of a million people are stuck waiting longer than 18 weeks for *treatment.

“Andy Burnham’s insensitive comments will anger the thousands of patients who are still waiting.”

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “Labour’s 18-week waiting time target has been widely discredited. The Government only met it by moving the goalposts and it hasn’t ended waiting in the NHS.

“People should not be waiting needlessly for treatment.

“But the way to sort that out is to improve treatment capacity in the NHS through allowing independent and voluntary-sector providers to do NHS work. It’s not through top-down targets that create stacks of paperwork and are a distraction for doctors and nurses.”

Mr Burnham provoked astonishment in a radio interview earlier this week by saying: “We have no waiting lists now in the NHS.”

Department of Health officials later clarified his remarks by saying that average waiting times were 7.7 weeks, the lowest since records began.

A Department spokesman said last night: “Record investment and dedicated staff have given patients the shortest waits since NHS records began.

“Patients should start treatment within 18 weeks of referral from a GP and are often treated much faster than this.

“In the 1990s it was not uncommon for people to wait 18 months or more for their operation, with some people dying on the waiting list.”

The June waiting list figures compare with a total of 280,663 patients waiting more than 18 weeks in May.

 

The adverage wait for chemo (this is across all cancers including the slow growing ones) is less than 4 weeks from initial diognosis to chemo. For surgury for a friend of mine it was less than a week and she was open on the table, for another friend it was 2 days. The adverage wait for angio post heart atack is about 10 min now with ambulances divirting past emergency rooms straight into angio for STEMI's. In Queensland the wait for thrombolitics is whatever the ambulance responce time is because they are now carried on the ambulances. Once again buffalo, what is the wait time for a poor person on less than $20,000 a year for chemo? Doubt you even know because they probably die before getting it

 

Would you rather that people just died? It's hard to pay for anything now, due to the economic collapse caused by predatory lending and a deregulated wall street.

 

Here is a better discussion of wait times than the biased nonsense buffalo roam posted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ms_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Wait_times

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was responding to the post in which you posted a July 2009 Fact Check article that 1) is about a House bill that never became law and 2) references a July 2009 testimony by Doug Elmendorf in which he suggests the health care bills as they existed then didn't do enough to bend the cost curve. But had you read the article it linked to, you would have seen:

Asked what provisions should be added, Elmendorf suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. He also suggested ending or limiting the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal "subsidy" that encourages spending on ever-more-expensive health packages. ​

Both of these provisions were later added to the bill and were contained in the law that passed earlier this year.

You're triumphantly posting articles that dissect bills that haven't been relevant since 2009. The year now is 2010.

 

Rather that they just die? well guess what spider? they are just dyeing, because the National Health Care Systems are so screwed up, that they do not get to see a Doctor in a timely manner for treatment, and as a result they end up dead, even though the Government Promised to take care of them.

 

Really, and the wait time data isn't manufactured to meet the standards?, and are factual? now exactly when does the time clock start ticking to measure the wait time?

Yes, Asguard what about this from;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/14/2899998.htm

Waiting list for medical specialists grows to 200,000
By Stephanie Smail

Updated Fri May 14, 2010 5:43pm AEST

Or How about this Asguard:

http://vic.liberal.org.au/News/Medi...CY-BY-RELEASING-OUTPATIENT-WAITING-LISTS.aspx

So Asguard, what about the waiting lists for treatment?

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukforgets.html

According to Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb: “Three days after the Health Secretary claimed there were no more waiting lists in the NHS, *Government figures have shown that a quarter of a million people are stuck waiting longer than 18 weeks for *treatment.

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “Labour’s 18-week waiting time target has been widely discredited. The Government only met it by moving the goalposts and it hasn’t ended waiting in the NHS.

 

So make up your mind, do you want them to see a doctor in a timely manner, or do you want them to navigate the free market waters like a tuna in a sea of sharks? Hell, let's make a reality TV show about it, Who Wants to be an Octogenarian? The losers get a great consolation prize, last rites.

 

nice to see some legit sources from you buffalo. Firstly i will ask for the third time, what is the waiting list for a person on $20,000 a year for chemo? Please just admit you dont have it because these arnt even kept in the US.

As i openly said before waiting times vary dependent on the procidure your talking about for various reasons and again as i said the worst is probably elective hip surgury waiting times. That is because we put life and limb above quality of life where as the US puts MONEY above life and limb OR quality of life. So the anithitists and op rooms are tied up with other surgury and the othopedic surgens tend to be doing traumatic limb fractures from high speed MVAs rather than elective hip surgury for the elderly.

Cancer patients have the shortest waiting times, I know this for a fact because it became a political issue when the adverage wait for chemo got to 4 weeks. Yes FOUR weeks from diognosis to chemo. Thats the other difference, the checks and balances are that if times blow out then its a political issue, who do people complain to in the US? who can actually do anything? The goverments blame the insurance companies and the hospitals nither of which they control, the insurance companies and the hospitals blame eachother. No one loses there job because the waiting time for chemo blew out. Our system suffers from a split in acountability between the federal gov who pays and the states who deliver hospitals and thats why there are calls to centeralise the health system in canbura (there are also calls to localise it which personally im against because without strategic planing the system will suffer and costs will blow out but thats beside the point), your system suffers from NO acountability at all

 

And a Federal government that threatened to take legal action unless mortgage lenders made loans to people who couldn't afford them.

Trace the roots of the current situation back far enough and you'll find a government imposing itself improperly in the market...with "good intentions," of course.

 

That's a lie.

 

Yes, that is false. If you think otherwise, please show proof. The government never threatened or forced banks to take on or issue loans to uncreditworthy customers. Once you start doing the research to prove your claim, you will find it to be a false claim.

 

Asguard.....nice of you to notice that I do use legitimate sources for my points, I always have.......

So why are you asking for data that you know doesn't exist?

It doesn't make your NHC system any more timely or efficient, and is noting but a red herring.

http://www.breastcancer.org/questions/insurance.jsp

Paying for Treatment Without Insurance
Email to a friend PrintPage last modified on: May 21, 2007
Question: I don't have health insurance. How will I pay for breast cancer treatment?

Answer: Several government and private organizations help people without medical insurance to pay for treatment:

Begin by contacting the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237). They have information about how to get free mammograms, Pap smears, and treatment.
Call your local Social Services Department. You may be eligible for Medicaid or other programs for low-income women.
Call your local Public Health Department to find out about local health care programs.
Many hospitals run free clinics where they provide medical care at no or low cost.
Contact the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation or the American Cancer Society.


How to get Prescription Drugs free, Meds, Chemotherapy Free at No Cost
By Sharon Watterson, eHow Member
I want to do this! What's This? ..

free prescription drugs meds chemo free no costphotoxpress User-Submitted Article
If you've ever been faced with a chronic illness, chemotherapy, and/or the need for daily medications with no health insurance or health insurance which doesn't cover prescriptions, there is an answer to your situation. It takes a little time and dedication, but it is possible to find most prescription drugs legitimately from pharmaceutical companies right here in the United States for free at no cost...................


How to get Prescription Drugs free, Meds, Chemotherapy Free at No Cost | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5853663_prescription-free_-meds_-chemotherapy-cost.html#ixzz0zQLOBEfy

 

smokinglizard is correct, the Government did it through Greenlining & ACORN with the ability to file complaints through the Community Reinvestment Act with federal bank regulators, these organization could stall or prevent bank mergers or expansion plans.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...Two-peas-in-a-pod-90658664.html#ixzz0zQP5F57t


The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [2] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [3] [4] In short, the federal government began forcing banks to make subprime loans to people who couldn't afford them.

(1) (2) (3) (4)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-0

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2086299/posts



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

 

3000 really isn't that bad. I know people who paid twice that for healthcare after they retired and for some people who have to use COBRA it can reach 13k a year.